I have three photos which might interest you. Since I have them in a book and do not have a scanner, before going into the trouble of having them scanned in nearby photo-lab, I'd like to know if you are interested (or that you don't have them already). Since, I'm not very familiar with pre-war machinery I cannot give you exact info, save it's supposed to be '37 model (front/rear torsion bar suspension, rear-mid engined). They appear to be works' PR photos and were (at least one of them) published in ATZ (Automobil Techniche Zeitung, 1937, Vol. 13) and then in my 'Bible' (Automobiltechnisches Handbuch, Berlin 1942).

First photo shows car from 5 o'clock starboard, with cowling removed; showing rear suspension (fore-aft running torsion bars, torsion shock absorbers), gearbox and engine. The second one shows details of front suspension (transverse torsion bar and torsion shocks), and the third shows Roots supercharger and a bit around it. In case you're interested I'll have them later scanned and posted here.

Wolf

Thanks for the offer, and I will be delighted to see those.
I promise I will try to reciprocate ;)

Felix

This should be good!

As it seems I'll have to get it done this week.

And while we wait, I'll ask a slight OT. Browsing through aforementioned 'Bible', trying (alas, in vain) to find out more about Avgas, I stumbled upon a thing that I haven't noticed earlier (I wasn't very keen on fuels, sorta). Can anyone enlighten me why Italian and German teams of the time used different fuels. Very different fuels. I thought if one was better, the other teams would've copied the formula (and it wouldn't be that hard, with all the drivers switching teams); but formulas seem too different to produce similar mixture characteristics. Any idea?

Wolf, just to wet your appetite before the experts wade in and help us out. Different engines would be running at different supercharger pressures (no turbo valves set to lift at given pressures), different cooling requirements, bound oxygen contents, rpms etc. An artisan's delight. Those mechanics (no assemblers and engine changers they) who could read what was going on from inspecting spark plugs were worth their weight in gold.

Some of the fuel brews would make you weep, not to mention their containing carcinogens.

So you've really asked a question!!

Oldtimer, it seems You were the only one joining in... OK, here are the specifications, in case someone cares to comment:


Anyone?

Wolf, what years would the specs be for? The 1938 3l cars ran at more than twice the boost as the 1937 (750 kg) cars.

The 'pertolether' may well be petroleum ether. Petroleum ethers are low boiling point, volatile petroleum fractions. They are classified by boiling range. MB & AU used benzene for aromatic hydrocarbon content, whereas Maserati and Alfa Romeo used toluene and nitro benzene (keep your fingers out of that stuff!). The castor oil would be acting as a lubricant. The use of castor oil as a lubricant in those days, and early post WW11, made the motor racing scene one of sights, sounds, AND smells.

I think I'm tapped out now!!

Yea, Oldtimer, can't beat the smell of burned castor oil. Of course, I had a moped (almost as old as me, sold it few years ago ), and a few cans of castor oil Pa Wolf used in his bike in '50. Haven't seen it on shelves lately, though; atlthough Castrol still produces it, AFAIK.

BTW, there is no indication for year when the mixtures were like that, and biblio-data doesn't help either.

Probably this will help:

http://www.autounion.btinternet.co.uk/

Just hope you´re not webmasters of such site, as I wouldn´t be amazed

Best regards,
cjpani

cjpani,
Thanks for this interesting site. I hope they expand on it.

I doubt that Mercedes-Benz and Auto-Union used exactly the same fuel, as the formula of the mixtures was kept secret. Also the blend formula was not the same over the years. MB started in 1934 with a mixture of gasoline and Benzene, which they called “2B” or “Bi-Bo”, resulting from the German words “Benzin” (gasoline) and “Benzol” (Benzene). This mixture was quite common in the 30’s, and – with some lower Benzene content - freely available of the filling stations of ARAL. TEL (Tetra Ethyl Lead) as octane booster was rather common already in the US, but the Germans still relied on their national coal industry, which produced large quantities of Benzene as by-product from coking process. All aromatics have a rather high octane rating, the RON of Benzene is approx. 110, and that of Toluene even 118, so a blend of 50 % gasoline (RON 90) and 50 % Benzene gave an Octane rating (RON) of 100. By adding TEL this rating could be increased up to approx. 110. Toluene would have been the better solution, but it’s quantities – also from coal tar – had been limited and needed by other applications, e.g. as solvent. Since the 70’s we know that Benzene is a carcinogen, and consequently it has been phased out in gasoline.

Mercedes in cooperation with the refining industry experimented then with alcohols, mainly Methanol, which has a RON of approx. 130. Alcohols are so-called Oxygenates, meaning that their molecules contain bound Oxygen. Advantage therefore is the internal cooling, but due to the fact that the calorific value of Methanol is only 50 % of gasoline, and even 40 % of gasoline-Benzene mix, the fuel consumption was considerably higher. The proposed blending formula resulted from these test was called “WW”, containing 86 % Methanol, 4 % Nitrobenzene, 9 % Acetone, and 1 % Ether. The Ether was needed for better starting, but I still don’t see the function of Acetone and Nitrobenzene.

As said before, the fuel consumption for this MeOH-based blend was enormous, resulting in additional pitstops for refuelling, so in 1936 a new blend was developed, called “XM”. Part of the Methanol was substituted by Ethanol (lower RON, but better calorific value), and another part by the traditional Benzene. This new blend contained 40 % methanol, 24 % Ethanol, 32 % Benzene, and for achieving a homogeneous mixture 4 % leaded gasoline.

However, it is known that not always the standard blends had been used. At hot weather conditions the Methanol content was increased to improve internal combustion cooling. At Tripoli 1937 e.g. MB used a mix of WW and XM, plus some extra Nitrobenzene and Acetone. As said above, I still wonder which secrets these highly dangerous products are hiding.

For the 3 litre engines of 1938/39 only pure alcohol fuels had been used, most probably a blend of Methanol and Ethanol, don’t know details.

The castor oil additive is not listed in these blends, because it was no fuel, but a lubricant, necessary for lubrication of moving parts not connected to the main lube system, as e.g. the supercharger. The denaturant shown in the “Italian” blend was necessary to protect the Ethanol component from being used as “non-fuel” application.

Some years ago I had the pleasure of standing beside a W125 when started and warmed-up. Besides the Trumpets-of-Jericho noise, the smell of the exhaust gases was terrific, after 2 minutes your eyes begin to tear, you start coughing, and your stomage would like to show the remains of your last meal to the public! The MB people confirm that they still use a rather exoctic fuel mixture today, however, without the “too dangerous” ingredients of the historic stuff. Most likewise it’s a blend of premium gasoline, Toluene, Methanol, Ethanol, and MTBE. However, even this stuff is so aggressive, that after each run the whole fuel system must be emptied and flushed with standard gasoline.

I confirm this, as I have also watched a MB started at Zolder some years ago. At 10 metres behind the car, when warmed up, you just can't stand. The "mixture" even fade the metallic silver grey painting aroud the filler.

I recall from recent readings that Shell Italia published in the fifties a report with the composition of the '30s fuels.There was castor oil in it also, thus Wolf's report is n't quite right on that.

I can't tell by memory, but I assume that either somebody out here has it at hands, or I'll have to check and report it here tomorrow.

What I can tell is that post war, the supercharged 158s ran on pure methanol + castor oil + a secret additive. This additive was carried in a little glass bottle to the race track and then mixed to the tank content.

They started using that additive when, before the first 1948 race, they experienced engine seizure on test bench after only half an hour running, while this never happened before.

It wasn't a proper engine failure, but the cause was identified in blower seizure, with both lobes and case covered with a strange 'cement' blocking it all. A former Alfa engineer, then working for Shell, was called. Shell provided analysis reports showing the the methanol they were providing was 100 % pure, even better than previous year.

And eventually, this was the cause. Pure methanol did react with the aluminium case, causing a coat of oxydation to form on the inside and eventual seizure. It didn't happen former years just because methanol wasn't pure. Adding a few drops of... water just stopped the inconvenient.

The secret additive was indeed milanese tap-water.
(from Giampaolo Garcea 'La mia Alfa')

The reason why the „Italian blend“ may not show any castor oil may be quite simple: as said above, the oil is well part of the mixture, but not part of the fuel. Every fuel for supercharged cars must contain a lubrication additive, which in those days was of course castor oil.

It is correct that especially Methanol is aggressive to aluminium, but the story with the mysterious water in my opinion is pure phantasy. Methanol as alcohol is able to bind water up to a percentage of 4-6 % as so-called azeotropic bond. This water cannot be removed by normal destillation, only by high-tech process not available in those years. This is also the reason that “pure” alcohol, meaning Ethanol resp. Ethyl Alcohol, always has a purity of 96 % with the remainder being azeotropic water. The Methanol produced in those days was in fact “wood alcohol” which always included a small percentage of water, not comparable with todays synthetic methanol with purity of min. 99.85 %. Additionally, Methanol remains aggressive to Aluminium even with some water in it …!

May be the mysterious bottle contained some kind of anti-oxidation additive, which was unable to form a homogeneous mixture with the Methanol, and therefore must be added only shortly before the race.

Sorry Michael, you seem to be more knowledgeable than I am about methanol / ethanol properties, but I would trust my sources, which seem to be serious enough to me.

The article -actually a chapter of a book- also says that this story has been presented by an Alfa engineer at an american conference on the use of alcohol as fuel in the mid seventies.

It also explains exactly how they found the origin of their problem and found a solution by experiencing on a reversed half supercharger case.

I would trust it was actually water, if not actually tap-water, and the distillation proceeding should have been improved for the analysis showed it much purer than the year before.

Now, I say I'm not chemist.

According to Karl Ludvigsen this 42.5% WW + 42.5% XM + 5% nitro-benzol + 10% acetone mix (or possibly 50% WW + 42% XM + 2.5% nitro benzol + 5% acetone) was used in racing with climatic adjustments after 1935-36 winter tests.
The WW fuel could still be used in speed record attempts.

Ludvigsen also gives examples of the different power outputs: M25B gave 370 bhp with 2B fuel and 430 bhp with WW.
The WW consumption was almost double that of 2B.

Patrick, I’m no chemist too, but I was involved very deeply in the business of gasoline blending in the early 80’s, especially concerning alcohols resp. oxygenates in general. In this period I also arranged some tests with Nitrobenzene and Acetone, because in a special book about gasoline chemistry published in the early 50’s (unfortunately it disappeared from my library) I found the formulas of the racing brews from the 30’s. However, these tests had been unsuccesful, although I have to admit that only blends with gasoline and not with alcohols had been made.

In the 70’s there was no standard specification for alcohol limit in gasoline, and blending practice was up to 10/12 % of Methanol. Experience showed that such level created enormous problems, firstly because the MeOH damaged rubber linings and gaskets as well as the aluminium of the carburettors, and secondly because the Lambda value of the fuel was not correct anymore due to the Oxygen already bound in the MeOH. However, it was a great time, Octane rating was phantastic, and due to low Methanol prices our cost price for premium gasoline was below that of regular …! Only in the early 80’s ASTM, DIN etc specs limited Methanol in gasoline to 3 % only.

The story of the “mystery water” still makes no technical sense for me. But on the other side, it may well be that the 1948 MeOH was already synthetic grade compared with water-containing natural stuff in 1947, have to check when the first synthetic Methanol plant went on stream in Europe. But to bring a tank of abt. 200 liters pure synthetic Methanol to 95-97 % wood alcohol spec, a small bottle would not be sufficient, you have to use a bucket! Would really like to have the comments of an experienced chemist to this.

And finally, considering that Italy always was a deep believing country, can you exclude that the content of the bottle has been made available by the arch bishop of Milan??

That was good, but I hope Wolf hasn't forgotten about the pictures.

Oldimer, of course I haven't. I'm told it'll be done this afternoon- serves me right for relynig on frends.

Sorry about the wait, gents. I hope it was worth it... Links point to a bigger files (I halved the resolution for posting them). Enjoy!


Big Image (2xres)


Big Image (2xres)


Big Image (2xres)

This is the C-type, yes. It had the only rear suspension that really worked, doing away with the transverse leaf spring and not yet adopting the deDion arrangement, which Auto Union never truly grasped.

I am under the impression that the D-type with the de Dion rear suspension was quite a good handler.

Love to hear a discussion on the relative merits of the handling of the Mercedes and Auto-Unions.

Don't mind me... I'm just flashing my new sig. Having done this- I'm off to stir some commotion with it in RC. BTW- Oldtimer, we're getting nowhere with this thread (and my photos). Wake up, everybody!

Wolf, I repeated the request (challenge?) in the P3 thread, so I haven't given up (yet).

Nuvolari reported post war that two factors helped the Auto Union handling : moving the driver's seat backwards and the De Dion axle.

I haven't studied well the Auto Union rear suspension, but I know that the transverse leaf spring, on Alfas (Tipo C, 8C2900,...) helped controlling the wheel camber change with swing axles. Actually, the leaf spring, as mounted, prevented the wheel motion downwards, i.e. the potential positive camber.

Yet another wonderful meaty thread.

Back in the '80s - I think, not as far back as the '70s - I spent a happy day at Donington Park with Phil Hill and 'Road & Track' magazine conducting a track test of Colin Crabbe's then newly-restored-to-running-condition AU D-Type - the 3-litre s/c V12 with the de Dion rear axle.

They had fudged it up to get it to run, with a Ford transit clutch driving a Hewland gearbox. The engine coughed and spat and banged, but it did run after a fashion.

The point was that Phil - who is an extremely perceptive historian as well as being such a hugely experienced and capable racing driver - was deeply (as in DEEPLY) impressed by the stability and roadholding ability of that de Dion rear-axled chassis.

"If it hadn't been for the war", he declared, "...we would all have been using rear-engined Grand Prix cars by 1941".

He recalled his own experimental drives in the original Ferrari 246MP rear-engined F1 prototype, and how it "felt as if you were on the end of a string, which someone was whirling round their head - in the Ferrari you never knew when that string was about to break - I didn't get to drive the D-Type that fast, but it just felt so much more secure than the way I recall that Ferrari". The Ferrari, of course, had primitive IRS, rather than a de Dion set-up.

h yes, and before anybody has a pop about 'rear-engined' should be 'mid-engined' - I use rear-engined to describe these cars - if the engine's within the wheelbase I would contend that it is 'mid-mounted' in any case...'front' makes it ahead of driver, 'rear' places it behind him.

Very interesting works pix Wolf.

DCN

I have personally resisted using the term "mid-engined" since it began creeping into the racing writers' vocabulary 20 or 30 years ago. To me the terms "front" and "rear" have always referred to the engine's placement relative to the driver. And, as Doug says, most cars with their engines in front of the driver are "mid-engined" anyway

Dear Doug!

If You decided to pay Your attention to the A-U cars, may be... You look through another thread about them:

http://www.atlasf1.com/bb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10638

Seek and ye shall find... That is a superb thread isn't it, and for me it brought back many memories of a confused and very frustrating period of research into the Donington car, which Tom Wheatcroft had paid through the nose for, and which he desperately wanted to be 'The E-Type Auto Union'.

I haven't had time to unearth and re-read my 'Classic & Sportscar' feature on this car but in the thread you have just directed me to one correspondent - aka 'KzKiwi' - wrote:

"After study and inspection of both the Wheatcroft car and AU E-type drawings and technical reports (von Eberhorst's 'Test report 307') Doug Nye concludes that the V12 engine in the car, as displayed at the Donnington Museum" - KzKiwi meant the Donington Museum, there are several Donningtons in the UK, rather more than the several Doningtons, but there are no double-Ns in the significant one - "...was clearly based either around a study of the Auto Union E-type project, or more probably, upon its actual drawings. Its construction, layout, bearing type and sizes, con-rod types and length all match pre and immediately post war details of the E-type engine." He (i.e. me - DCN) then goes on to say "..too many chassis parts are utterly identical to pre war AU to be coincidence. If those parts were not made by the old team pre war and survived the conflict, they were certainly made to AU's drawings and to an astonishlingly high standard which East Germany' immediate post war reputation does not suggest possible."

"Nye's summary of the car in question is as follows." While we cannot prove whether this fascinating mystery car is more post than pre war, more DAMW or EMW than Auto union, I am now convinced its chassis is at least 75 per cent AU practice and design, and in part possibly of pre war manufacture. Its engine certainly forms the mortal remains or descendant of the 1941 Auto Union E-type project..." "

I absolutely stand by that.

I should describe the circumstances of the time. Tom Wheatcroft had acquired Donington Park race circuit site at huge expense. He had built the museum there for his racing car collection - at huge expense. He had fought planners to secure re-opening of the track for racing - at huge expense. And for years he had been trying to secure an Auto Union for the collection - to star at Donington Park - regardless of expense. Then came the German approach - and he bought 'The E-Type Auto Union' - for a trailer truckload of munny.

No, I had not been consulted at any time - in any way - BEFORE he had concluded the purchase.

The first I knew of the deal was when Wheatie asked Jenks and I to go to Tilbury Docks to see his 'Auto Union' as it came through Customs. We went, we stood, we saw - and our jaws dropped.
While it was certainly AU-like - it wasn't any AU we had ever known of - and it CERTAINLY was not the mystical E-Type...

Anyway - restoration went ahead. And I eventually drove the car and wrote it up for 'Classic & Sportscar'.

I could not at that time declare to the world in print - for what my opinion might ever be worth - that this Donington car was definitely NOT the E-Type of 1941 since to do so would have been kicking a man I respect (the owner) in the orchestras... and truly denting what for him had long been a dream. But I could sail as close in print to letting people know what I considered to be the truth, had they the wit to read the piece and draw their own conclusions.

NO WAY was I about to publicise and promote the car for Tom as being an 'Auto Union' when all the evidence I had examined, including the hardware of the car itself, indicated that it was definitely NOT the E-Type per se, in the form in which that model had been recorded in every reference and liberated document that I - and Jenks - had ever seen. I

I had even telephoned Eberan von Eberhorst in Vienna and we had discussed the car in some detail. Much about the design was familiar to him...but after 1945 he had been otherwise engaged...in British industry...

Not least, of course, the fact that the 'Donington car's V12 engine had a 2-litre capacity and was unsupercharged, absolutely screamed postwar Formula 2...

Jenks and I both trowelled into any leads we could find.

Wheatie's vendor had gone to earth (!).

I spotted the front-engined DAMW lead - the IFA malarkey, Rennkollectiv, EMW etc all became factors in play.

I heard rumours of a car having been tested in East Germany - and involved in a fatal accident possibly during public road testing. There was the name of an engineer/driver I cannot just now recall having been the victim of this accident. (Incidentally there was also a big shunt in an early postwar Russian race or demo which claimed spectator's lives which allegedly involved a true Auto Union - possibly in Kharkov if not Moscow???? There's something to chase down????)

I did not find the Sokol lead, which is truly fascinating...and is I am sure the resolution of this story, as yes, those photographs undoubtedly show either the Donington car or its twin sister.

As quoted by 'KzKiwi', I ended up at the time of writing the 'C&SC' story, 100 per cent convinced that "While we cannot prove whether this fascinating mystery car is more post than pre war, more DAMW or EMW than Auto Union, I am now convinced its chassis is at least 75 per cent AU practice and design, and in part possibly of pre war manufacture. Its engine certainly forms the mortal remains or descendant of the 1941 Auto Union E-type project..."

The reason for my conclusion is abundantly obvious from the photos reproduced in your original thread - AU-type twin-tube frame, AU-type V12 engine, suspension and brake components which are either scaled-down pre-war AU designs or actually passed-on AU pre-war manufactured components.

The hardware simply drips AU design, manufacture and practise in many areas - and yet there is NO WAY that it is the never-completed 'E-Type Auto Union' which was going to be 1.5-litre supercharged as we know and would have been a simply different animal.

1940s East German industrial standards and material quality were very poor indeed compared to pre-war Saxon plant practise. In part the Soviet occupiers and their puppets seemed to ensure that recovering industry in that part of the world could pose no future threat to Russia...never mind to the west...

I drove the restored car quite extensively at Donington Park once it had been completed to running order. It was gutless but stable and handled rather well.

Don't worry yourselves over the puzzling body now worn by the car for that was a freelance 'near enough is close enough' Wheatie work based upon fuzzburger German magazine photo-copies by his panel basher John Cole, and it was made in their workshop at the Wheatcroft builder's yard in Wigston, Leicester.

I have always thought of the car as being VERY much more East German DAMW/Rennkollectiv than anything else - I stand by my riginal assessment that numerous GENUINE AU or AU design parts have been incorporated into it - and in general conversation I have ALWAYS, INVARIABLY corrected people who have described the Donington car as being 'The E-Type Auto Union' ... 'cos it ain't.

Is this clear?

DCN

I was looking for something else and typically, I came across this!

Is this the car that Doug was referring to in the previous post?

Yes Barry - this is der liddle rascal...

DCN

Sorry Doug, "rascal?", do you mean our typ 650 or sokol from the Auto Union 1.5 l thread?

As in yes the photo shows the Donington car.

DCN

Out of curiosity, how is the car described to the public at the Museum ?

Mark, just to answer this old question, as an Auto Union Typ E, which is really wrong, cause when that car was constructed, there was no more Auto Union, which was "cancelled" on August, 17th 1948. But there were used several parts from the Typ D to built up that car. Two cars and three engines were. Both cars are existing, one is in the exhibition of Donnington.

Everything else you can read on the Auto Union 1.5L thread.

Just to bring that thread back:

The legend: "In the second pic above, instead, the "Sokol 650" of the 1952, realized for the international "Formula-2" competitions. It was substantially derived from a project of the German "Auto Union" (now well known as Audi), requisitioned by the Russians after the occupation of the East Germany. The engine, placed centrally, was a 1990 cc, 152 hp/8000 rpm, four cylinders, DOHC, with four Solex carburettors and with the crankshaft on roller bearings; the suspensions were indipendent on the front axle, ant with the De Dion system on the rear axle. Unfortunately, this car never had other developements."

Brun/Uechtel, here we are talking about a 1952-car, but would you agree, it was constructed earlier, maybe in 1949/1950?

Holger, all I can say is, that I have no evidence speaking against your theory.

I have to admit, that in the beginning I had some problems in accepting the sequence of stations of those cars, designed in Germany, brought to Russia etc. But this is much more Brun´s corner of research than mine and I having read what he (and you) have already published about the subject most of it begins to make sense to me and so I have no reason to doubt what he has written about it so far.

The only question I still miss some really satisfying answer is whether and why the cars were indeed transferred back from Russia to Germany, only to do a few test runs and then be put aside again? And why did they not return some aof the Auto Unions, too. In contrast to the Sokol those had at least already prooved, that they were competitive when prepared by competent hands.

Good question.
I discussed the same with Brun over the weekend, may there will be more light in the tunnel, if we know the Sokol-history between 1955 and the 70s?

Does anyone know the name Werner Beyer as Manager of GDR-car manufacturing? Brun, Uechtel? Ever heard of him?

As to why they were put aside: I've more or less tried to answer that one in the 2nd Sokol article on 8W.

And as to the real Auto Unions? Well, from what I understood out of the Russian sources I read, these cars became a real burden on the Russians after Stalin died. They couldn't race them, since the cars didn't fit the Formulas any more. They'd already more or less disected some of them and extracted as much valuable design knowlegde and insights as possible. So the cars just lay there, being an annoying bureaucratic responsability to someone. I guess this someone or these someones just took the easy route - let 'em stay where they are, or throw 'em in the steel plant melting pot.

And remember: there was little Auto Union-expertise hands in Russia at that time. The only AU that really ran well, still had some original fuel left in its tank. It crashed and killed its driver. As for the others: the Soviets didn't know how to get the fuel mix right.

East-German engineers visited Moscow in the 1970s and accidentally saw four Auto Unions in the NAMI institute. It was a real embarrasment to their hosts. On the German's next visit, a few years later, the cars weren't their anymore.



Yep. As I've written on 8W: it's a proven fact that they raced in Moscow in the 1st half of 1952 (likely in April). Means that the cars had to be ready somewhere late 1951, since the Chemnitz team did some test runs too. And I don't think they designed and built it within a year - even pre-war Auto Union couldn't do that, let alone a postwar GDR enterprise. So it's very conceivable that the project started around 1949 or 1950.



Never hear of 'em... can't find anything on that name on the Internet too.

Is there more to read about this anywhere?

Brun, that´s not my point here. I have already got the answer in your article. But my question relates on your next statement:



That´s exactly the reason for my question: Why returning the Sokols to Germany in hope to get them competitive and not doing exactly the same with the "useless" Auto Unions? In contrast to the Sokol these WERE already successful machines!

And Holger,



I think that name does tell me something. I will have another look in my sources...

Brun, Uechtel, that's what I discussed with HJ. Weise of Schröder & Weise. They believe in the fascination of the AU silverarrows. The cars with 6-L 16-zylinder-engines or powerfull 12-zylinder-engines fullfilled with race-history, driven by great drivers. Would you give such one car back to Germany, What's a Sokol to that.



Yes Uechtel I'm very interested in that, the next name is Herr Sonntag? All guys were engaged in eastern german car devellopment as managers.

Yes, but if so, then why scrapping them up instead? And why not the Sokol as well?





No idea about Mr Sonntag. If I had heard or read his name before I would certainly remember.

Cause he was not as mysterious as the AU and not so fascinating.

Yes, but they were Nazi technology. The Russians would've made a fool of themselves, sticking a red star onto a pre-war Auto Union and racing them.

Also, these cars didn't fit the 1,5-litre and 2-litre Formulas that were in force at the time.

Yes and pearls in interested hands. Have a look on todays historic motorsport events, the AU have an incredible impact, a Sokol with no history would be looked on as OK-Racer. And 50 years ago, it was the same, the AU's were stars, but the Sokol was a try to get something of the AU-glamour to the Russians, I think the Sokol wouldn't ever see GDR again, if this car would get successfull.

Here the "Red Star" would be get best PR-spectacles for the Russian car industry. If I understood the most things with the Sokol right, than this was the idea.

Canberra Australia 2008